WILLIAM AND KAEY.

101

lation. To make a law for punishing that which, at the timewhen it was done, was not punishable, is contrary to all soundprinciple. But a law which merely alters the criminal proce-dure may with perfect propriety be made applicable to past aswell as to future offences. It would have been the grossest in-justice to give a retrospective operation to the law which madeslavetrading felony. But there was not the smallest injustice inenacting that the Central Criminal Court should try feloniescommitted long before that Court was in being. In Torrington’scase the substantive law continued to be what it had alwaysbeen. The definition of the crime, the amount of the penalty,remained unaltered. The only change was in the form of pro-cedure ; and that change the legislature was perfectly justifiedin making retrospectively. It is indeed hardly possible to be-lieve that some of those who opposed the bill were duped by thefallacy of which they condescended to make use. The feelingof caste was strong among the Lords. That one of themselvesshould be tried for his life by a court composed of plebeiansseemed to them a degradation of their whole order. If theirnoble brother had offended, articles of impeachment.ought tobe exhibited against him: "Westminster Hall ought to be fittedup: his peers ought to meet in their robes, and to give in theirverdict on their honour: a Lord High Steward ought to pro-nounce the sentence and to break the staff. There ivas an endof privilege if an Earl was to be doomed to death by tarpaulinsseated round a table in the cabin of a ship. These feelings hadso much influence that the bill passed the Upper House by amajority of only two.* In the Lower House, where the dignitiesand immunities of the nobility were regarded with no friendly

CRAP.

XVI.

1691 ).

* Lords’ Journals, Oct. 30. 1690. The numbers are never given inthe Lords’ Journals. That the majority was only two is asserted byRalph, who hud, I suppose, some authority which I have not been able tolind.